Posted
by
Soulskill
on Saturday March 12, 2011 @09:27AM
from the they-get-to-keep-their-clothes-for-now dept.

cultiv8 writes "A US judge Friday ordered Twitter to hand over the data of three users in contact with the activist site WikiLeaks. 'US Magistrate Judge Theresa Buchanan rejected arguments raised by the ACLU, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and a host of private attorneys representing the Twitter account holders, who had asserted that their privacy was protected by federal law, the First Amendment, and the Fourth Amendment. Buchanan rejected each of the arguments in quick succession, saying that there was no First Amendment issue because activists "have already made their Twitter posts and associations publicly available." The account holders have "no Fourth Amendment privacy interest in their IP addresses," she said, and federal privacy law did not apply because prosecutors were not seeking contents of the communications.'"

If somebody at Twitter deleted those accounts, or at least deleted the identifying information and it couldn't clearly be established who had done it... what could the US government do to Twitter as a corporation? Even a large fine would probably be worth it in the long run from all the goodwill and positive feedback they'd get from their users.

saying that there was no First Amendment issue because activists "have already made their Twitter posts and associations publicly available."

and a host of private attorneys representing the Twitter account holders

What other information are they after if they already have the identity of the twits (or is it twitees)? If they are represented by attorneys the court already knows who they are, right? Any tweets they posted were publicly available. What other info does Twitter have about these individuals?

This is more problematic for the Icelandic MP, as many of those tweets could have been part of government business - It's almost certain that foreign government workers will leave twitter now, being barred by their respective governments - assuming that they hadn't already been so. The ability for the government to get private data is also going to scare off a lot of normal users.

and a host of private attorneys representing the Twitter account holders

What other information are they after if they already have the identity of the twits (or is it twitees)? If they are represented by attorneys the court already knows who they are, right? Any tweets they posted were publicly available. What other info does Twitter have about these individuals?

If somebody at Twitter deleted those accounts, or at least deleted the identifying information and it couldn't clearly be established who had done it... what could the US government do to Twitter as a corporation?

Who cares what they'd do to the corporation. The people who deleted the information would be charged with interference with a federal investigation, destruction of evidence, and likely a number of other associated charges. Furthermore, the fact someone would deem the information worthy of destruction actually bolsters the government's position the information is worth obtaining.

GooberToo - As a unbiased Canadian, you have no idea how right-winged your comments sound. I'm sorry, in order for your point to be valid - this "deleted information" and "interference" would have to come from a crime after conviction. Is there a conviction we don't know about? Apart from the Private who handed over the documents (and who's charges have yet to be proved in court), what are you're referring to? Has Assange been charged by a US District court, found guilty 'in absentia'? Is there something the rest of the civilized world do not know?

Isn't your first amendment is a foundation and a pillar of democracy? (which a lot of countries view as a model for modern societies). This judge, BTW if you actually did your homework, is a republican who has more ties to the past Bush administration than Halliburton oil-blow-off valve for off-shore drilling rigs.

The prosecution found a judge who would ignore the constitution to rubber stamp what ever they needed.

It's a sad day for US democracy - I'm sorry to say it, but isn't the USA suppose to be a model of democracy? Why is the USA appearing more and more like a totalitarian regime?

I think the parent referred to people who are in contact with an organization that leaked confidential information. We could go about all day about whether this information should have been classified Secret/Top Secret, but as it stands right now, WikiLeaks leaked information that the US wants to keep secret. That makes it an action against the US. I don't know if I would call WikiLeaks a "terrorist organization", but the US could be forgiven for going after people cooperating with it.If Twitter did not com

WikiLeaks only publishes information that already has been leaked. They don't send out spies to gather such information like those three letter agencies do.

And none of the information published by WikiLeaks caused any real harm to or even endangered a person, nor was it suited to do so. The interest the US have here is about the same of a criminal not wanting to have his crimes and other stuff he is ashamed for published.

btw, recently I stumbled over this fine sentence: "WikiLeaks is the intelligence agency of the people".:)

And you know that how? Some of the information involved terrorism and counter terrorism information overseas. Any terrorist organization could use it to determine how much the US knew about them and what the US was going to do and where and when. Of course the US may have changed plans after the leak but you don't know if an operative got caught as the existence of the operative and his/her capture would have been secret.

AFAIK that was all outdated information, not suited to give any actual advantage to terrorists. Do you really endorse that all those lies and crimes of your government are being kept top-secret under the disguise of national security?

Remember the whole hubub about Valerie Plame. Her exposure wasn't just about her. Her "company" was a cover company. As soon as she was exposed, anyone who worked for her company was also outed as a CIA operative as well.

LOL, wasn't that leaked by your very own government as a revenge to her husband because he didn't want to lie for Bush and his vain attempts to justify this illegal invasion in Iraq?

AFAIK that was all outdated information, not suited to give any actual advantage to terrorists.

From wikipedia:

The contents of the diplomatic cables include numerous unguarded comments and revelations regarding: critiques and praises about the host countries of various US embassies; political manuevring regarding climate change; discussion and resolutions towards ending ongoing tension in the Middle East; efforts and resistance towards nuclear disarmament; actions in the War on Terror; assessments of other threats around the world; dealings between various countries; US intelligence and counterintelligence efforts; and other diplomatic actions.

Do you really endorse that all those lies and crimes of your government are being kept top-secret under the disguise of national security?

That depends. Is your entire world view in black in white?

LOL, wasn't that leaked by your very own government as a revenge to her husband because he didn't want to lie for Bush and his vain attempts to justify this illegal invasion in Iraq?

Yes but my point was how dangerous any piece of information could be. Knowing that Valerie Plame is an operative risks more than her life. For example knowing that the US is wishes to increase their efforts in Yemen with more personnel could mean danger for any additional personnel they send to Yemen. It also endangers anyone that Yemen terrorists thinks is an American operative whether they are or not.

Wikileaks PUBLISHED information, they didn't leak it. Whoever had it legitimately and gave it to them leaked it. The two acts are NOT synonmous, legally speaking or otherwise. No one has ever been thrown in jail for simply publishing classified material. Some people have been executed for leaking it though (Rosenbergs, for example). The New York Times published the same (and other) classified information (Pentagon Papers, for example). None

> nor any other that suggests you have the right to anonymity for partaking in illegal activity or otherwise.>There is no reason whatsoever anyone NEEDS the write to post anonymous messages online -

That's why you are posting as AC instead of using your real name? Cool, bro.May I know you SSN, your real name, your address and whatever private data you are hiding from me. Because apparently according to you privacy is an act of terrorism, unpatriotic, un-american, etc.

Please return your geek license and repeat that Turing test. I wonder if you're really a reasonable human or a rep robot.

In addition : there is no terrorist organisation involved. Or do you mean the armed forces who caused that "collateral damage" in Afghanistan?

No it's like Woodrow Wilson and FDR all over again. McCarthy was an ass but he didn't jail anybody.

Ehm Wikipedia on McCarthyism [wikipedia.org]: It is difficult to estimate the number of victims of McCarthyism. The number imprisoned is in the hundreds, and some ten or twelve thousand lost their jobs.

it's quite possible that the IP address identifies no one... so how can it possibly be personal information....

This is doublethink. The only reason they want the IP address is that it might identify someone. If it doesn't identify anyone then there is no reason to provide it, and if it does identify someone then it is personal information. In either situation it should not be provided.

No, it's an alternative. Either an IP address is linked to a person or it isn't. If it isn't, there is no reason to provide it, because that's why anybody might want a court to give it to them. If it is, it's private, so the court shouldn't be giving it out. The doublethink is trying to have it both ways: You can't say that it isn't private because it isn't identifying and then turn around and say that the court will therefore order it be given over so that the account holder can be identified. It has to be one or the other, and in either case turning it over is the the wrong thing to do.

I thought the point of the first amendment argument was that this sort of action would have a chilling effect on free speech, not that the twitter users were having their free speech rights directly violated...

Is it valid for a judge to consider the effect a ruling might have on others, rather than the actual law involved in a case? I'm genuinely curious if they are supposed to consider the effect of a ruling when the letter of the law hasn't been violated?

As a lawyer, I wish articles like this would link the decision at the very beginning or the very end of the article always. Here [eff.org], no thanks to the/. summary!

Decisions relying on anti-"chilling effect" policy reasons for the conclusion tend to be at the appellate level, not the district level, and especially not at the magistrate level. Magistrates are appointed for a short number of years and are not Article III judges. Doing what the Article III judges (district, circuit, SCOTUS) say is of the utmost importance to them since Magistrates are basically merely auxiliaries or para-judges. So, no, magistrate judges will almost never rely on public policy concerns such as "chilling effects" to decide an issue. This is my experience as someone who used to work directly for a federal magistrate judge doing research for him.

Now, I humbly offer my analysis of the decision (apologies for it not being perfect writing, but it's Saturday, and the goal is just to shed a little light on what actually is going on in the decision):

Facts

Gov't requests Twitter records that do not include the contents of posts. Namely, it requests ID, contact info, registration information, records of connection time, etc.

Court orders Twitter to turn over info

Twitter users argue to "get rid of" ("vacate") the order to disclose this info.

Issues

Does the Stored Communications Act give power to Twitter users to try and get order vacated (i.e., do Twitter users have "standing" under the SCA)

was the order properly issued

does the order violate 1st Amendment

does order violate 4th Amendment

One user is Icelandic and a gov't official, so does "international comity" require vacation of the order

Standing under SCANo, they dont. SCA gives standing only if contents of communications are requested. The distinction between contents and records (non-content data such as ID, access time, etc.) is explicitly made in the law itself, so this isn't just semantics. Government wins issue 1.

Proper issuance of orderUsers argue the government did not follow proper procedure to get the order. Users argue info requested is not relevant and material to investigation. Court says it is.

First AmendmentUsers argue it creates a chilling effect on free speech by creating a "map of association." Court says that the association between these users was made publicly by the users themselves already, so no chilling effect in this instance can be had. This is where the whole "publicly policy" issue would come into play in an appellate court, but not in an Article I magistrate court. While it could have a chilling effect on other associations (which I personally doubt, as, IIRC from my use on Twitter, everyone's Twitter friend list is publicly accessible anyway), it's not for the magistrate court to decide. That would be for the Circuit or Supreme Courts.

Fourth AmendmentUsers argue it's a warrantless search, and the requested IP addresses are "intensely revealing" as to location, including location within a home and movements within. OK, wtf is this bullcrap? Turning over an IP address will tell the police which room in a house you were posting in? That sounds really specious.

In any case, court enters into a "reasonableness" analysis as is de rigueur with Fourth Amendment issues--does the act infringe on expectation of privacy society consideres reasonable? There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in data voluntarily turned over to third parties. This may not be true if the EULA specifies that data will be kept private, but the court doesn't address this issue because the argument was never made. Instead, the court says: Look, you gave Twitter your IP address, so you can't reasonably expect it to be kept secret from police. Other courts have apparently said si

The whole point of the first amendment is "congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech". That doesn't guarantee anonymity. The only thing that guarantees anonymity is the person exercising the freedom of speech and what steps they take to be anonymous. Using an interconnected computer network without taking steps beyond a clever nickname does no such thing.

I have to respond to the Guantanamo Bay issue, since it pops up so often. In 2009 and again in 2011, congress passed laws blocking the transfer of prisoners from the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. They were part of omnibus spending bills, so refusing to sign them would have been a disaster. I don't know what you expected Obama to do, short of declaring himself emperor and ruling by decree.

It's ironic that one of your complaints is about the president violating the constitution, while the other is about him not violating the constitution to get his way. Funny how our views change depending on whether we oppose or support an issue.

I would like him to do what no Democrat has done in years. I would like him to call a press conference, tell the people how important those bills are and that he can't sign them because attached a rider calling for America to act like a two bit dictatorship and he refuses to be a part of that.

He can then emphasize the point by declaring that if Congress would like to rush him a version with those lines struck, he will sign it instantly.

The republican party has already publicly stated that their policy is o

Unfortunately, a bit more than one quarter of the US identifies as Republican/right-wing/authoritarian-follower, or any two of those or all three. About the same amount identifies as Democratic/left-wing. The remaining half are ostensibly 'independant' but trend right-of-center.

This is a country just BEGGING for an authoritarian right-wing dictator.

> They were part of omnibus spending bills, so refusing to sign them would have been a disaster.

The government shutting down is not a disaster. It has happened before. It doesn't last very long, and very few people die (probably a couple at VA hospitals or something, if you squint and look at it from an angle). It has happened before, and is a pretty potent political stick to get Congress to remove policy edicts from spending bills. It would be politically risky for him to

I don't know what you expected Obama to do, short of declaring himself emperor and ruling by decree.

2007 Obama:

"While we're at it," he said, "we're going to close Guantanamo. And we're going to restore habeas corpus.... We're going to lead by example not just word but by deed. That's our vision for the future."

I don't know...expect him to follow through on what he was elected upon? What was his plan then? In 2009 in his inaugural speech he reaffirmed that United States does not have "to continue with a false choice between our safety and our ideals." In January, he signed an executive order to close it. Was there a plan in 2009? Incidentally, in 2009 there was a lot of talk about prosecuting Bush for these very acts that are perpetuated today.

Executive orders have less authority than acts of Congress. If Congress says no transferring prisoners out of Gitmo, and the President does it anyway, it will end up in the Supreme Court and the President will lose. The President could then choose not to enforce the Supreme Court's decision (like Andrew Jackson did when the Supreme Court told him to stop purging Georgia of Cherokee Natives and he gave the Court the finger and sent the whole tribe packing to Oklahoma anyway), at which point it would be up

oh boy. one great display of freedom after another - freedom to commit war crimes and hide it from public that is. and it is not treason to commit war crimes behind the backs of the elected people - but to let people know it - or, even more, people TO know it.

oh boy. one great display of freedom after another - freedom to commit war crimes and hide it from public that is. and it is not treason to commit war crimes behind the backs of the elected people - but to let people know it - or, even more, people TO know it.

It's a long standing precedent that one has the freedom to publish anything first and then face punishment after the fact. Did you think this was something new? Why do so many people think freedom of the press means freedom from consequences of publishing something proscribed?

States secrets cannot simply be shouted about because you happen to know them. You are implying that anyone should have the right to any state secrets (or any information for that matter), which would clearly never work in a society that relies on state secrets for a variety of reasons ranging from Treaty Negotiations, Espionage, Research, Military Operations, etc. There are clearly valid reasons for such state secrets to exist.

Except we do not live in a perfect world, and altruistic statements claiming that peace, love, and harmony would result if there were no secrets have no basis in fact since no such state of mind and openness exists, and most likely never will due to the human nature. Claiming that it would be that way with no proof to that effect (since such a condition has never existed in Man's written history) is a bit disingenuous and it also happens to be based on simple beliefe rather than any social models that actua

If you are free to speak or assemble or worship, it doesn't mean you can do it until the government finds out and (potentially) stops you.

Freedom of speech was proposed because the founders didn't have it. They wanted to protect it in case the government they created ever became corrupt. Ironically, the first steps on the road of corruption seem to be limiting the freedoms guaranteed in the bill of rights.

If you are free to speak or assemble or worship, it doesn't mean you can do it until the government finds out and (potentially) stops you.

Freedom of speech was proposed because the founders didn't have it. They wanted to protect it in case the government they created ever became corrupt. Ironically, the first steps on the road of corruption seem to be limiting the freedoms guaranteed in the bill of rights.

Likewise, it's a long standing precedent that one has the freedom (hypothetically) to rob a bank and then face punishment after the fact.

No, actually that is not true. The government is allowed to stop you from robbing a bank. The courts have often ruled that the government cannot stop you from publishing, even when they can punish you after you have done so.

With a true free press nothing may ever be proscribed. A regulated press, regardless of whether well or poorly regulated, is far from being free. The concept that speech deemed offensive or dangerous may be regulated rapes the very foundations of freedom. The consequences of speech poorly received could be social but never carry legal penalties or civil fines etc..

are you speaking of the lives of the cia personnel that kidnapped people, the bastards that set up torture prisons in client countries, or the whoresons who tortured people in those countries ? or the agents which arranged for killings and murders in iraq, afghanistan ?

noone gives two shits about lives of those people. they chose their path, and they were PAID for it.

A harsh assessment of the political history, examining Democrats, Republicans, and corporations should show most people that in general politicans are members of the financial elite first, and second, act in an eternal political nonsense scenario - where all versions of the facts and opinions are allowed to be discussed, except if they are of any consequence that matters. And so great political theater is made, for example, of the extra thousands in salary or benfits of some group, but no discussion of eve

The right to speak anonymously in order to protect one's self from retaliation from individuals or oppressive, tyrannical or vengeful governments is an ESSENTIAL part of the first amendment protection. So the judge is simply wrong about this. Having the right to speech is only part of the first amendment. Having the right to free speech without fear is the rest of it.

I'm surprised the Shield Law [wikipedia.org] doesn't apply to places like twitter. They function very much the same, an a source of information is known to the publisher but is anonymous to the public, to protect that source.

We have a Digital Millenium Copyright Act, we need a Digital Millennium Shield Law. Funny how we get new laws all the time to make more acts illegal due to advances in technology, but never seem to get new protective laws due to advances in technology. Makes me think the legal system considers the c

Great point. Twitter started out as a joke, but has quickly become a vital aspect of toppling governments. Same for Facebook.

For graduates of the John Yoo [wikipedia.org] school of law, that's what free speech/1st amendment was for in the first place.

And the same administration is going to deign to lecture Iran and China on human rights issues? (Hillary at the UNHRC.) Speaking of Iran, how exactly are they going to condemn Iran going after social networkers and trying to unmask Twitter users after they're doing it themselv

Are you saying that Twitter's servers know your IP when you're tweeting to establish the TCP connection? Yes, that's true, but they have no technical (as opposed to political) reason to log the IP address.

Sure, and I understand the advertising value in knowing that a user is from xyz ZIP code. But keeping a log with IP address correlated with login times doesn't have commercial value, and any company that wants to make money, but doesn't want to bolster the national security state would be well advised to just not keep the logs.

This is the same as corporations that have document purge policies. Corps do it for their privacy, and they can do it for u

The right to speak anonymously in order to protect one's self from retaliation from individuals or oppressive, tyrannical or vengeful governments is an ESSENTIAL part of the first amendment protection. So the judge is simply wrong about this. Having the right to speech is only part of the first amendment. Having the right to free speech without fear is the rest of it.

Sure, I'll bite, so to what extent is your anonymity protected? If I find out who you are, can I tell the rest of the world? If you speak something anonymously (what?) can I give a description of you later? What identifiable aspects do you think are protected? What WOULD you have protected? Should you be able to prosecute me for identifying you? How would you demarcate "anonymous" speech so that I know to "hide/make believe/look the other way" for any information I know about the speaker?

They *are* part of the government, why do people think they will act in the best interest of the people and not the government? The case and ruling are biased, a third party should be making the decision.

Question to web 2.0 companies: Why are you keeping logs of which user logged in from which IP address in the first place? That is, if it's not out of some misplaced sense of "patriotism", or do the Feds make you do it?

For GeoIP ads, that a problem for the ad server serving the ad to the person reading a tweet, not the tweeter. And if it's for geographical information on the tweeter, just do the GeoIP lookup upon signup, and you don't need to keep the IP data.

In some cases it's needed so authorities can follow up on users' illegal activities (death threats, stalkers, identity theft, publishing of illegal content like child pornography...). Otherwise the company could be held liable.In other cases it's needed for follow-ups to protect yourself from fraud (e.g. if a user doesn't want to pay and denies he has signed up for your service even though you can prove logins from his IP and with his payment details).

Question to web 2.0 companies: Why are you keeping logs of which user logged in from which IP address in the first place? That is, if it's not out of some misplaced sense of "patriotism", or do the Feds make you do it?

I can't speak for other web site owners, but I track the IP addresses of every visitor on my site for two primary reasons:

First, so that if someone tries to hack my site, I can find them, report them to their ISP, and prosecute them if necessary. This also applies to defacement. As my sites are social-networky, if someone does something to try to deface them, I track the IP address so that I can deny it, or if necessary, a range of addresses, to the sites to keep them from just signing up with throwaway a

Second, it is included as part of the session information as a security measure. If someone attempts to connect to my site using a session (which entails not having to type his or her username and password to log in every time), the site matches the session ID against the IP address also to make sure the user is connecting via that session from the same address. If it is a different address, that is an indication that someone may be trying to hijack someone else's session and it redirects back to the login page.

You should drop the IP check. Laptop users who suspend or hibernate will hate you for that, as will anyone who goes through a round-robin set of IP addresses.

Use https if you're that worried about it.

Since you're redirecting if the IP doesn't match, if someone wanted to steal the user credentials, they'd just serve them up a copy of your login page at some random point, then redirect to your real login page. No need to steal a session when you've already trained people to have to log in at random time

First, the point is not that this will effect the participants ability to say whatever they said. The point is that it will effect future participants willingness to say things. It's about the chilling effect, not about the given participants first amendment rights exactly.

Secondly, I do have a privacy interest in my IP address. If I didn't, then why do services like Tor exist to hide it? If nobody cared about that, then nobody would use Tor, but many people clearly do. So people do have a privacy interest in their IP address. So the 4th amendment does apply.

Secondly, I do have a privacy interest in my IP address. If I didn't, then why do services like Tor exist to hide it? If nobody cared about that, then nobody would use Tor, but many people clearly do. So people do have a privacy interest in their IP address. So the 4th amendment does apply.

That's not what the judge said, she said there's no 4th amendment privacy interest. You may have a large privacy interest in your ex not talking about your infidelity, STDs and poor lovemaking but you have no 4th amendment protection of it. For the most part, the courts have strictly interpreted the 4th amendment to mean places you own or have exclusive control over like your apartment and bank deposit box. Whatever information third parties have registered about you generally only requires a subpoena of the third party, not you. Same as if you store your drugs in the neighbor's garden shed and his subpoena is valid then you have no 4th amendment protection.

So, information in a third parties hands is fair game? Like signatures signatures on initiative and referendum petitions [ballotpedia.org]? It will be interesting to see how the SCOTUS rules on this. Particularly how it will influence campaign funding, lobbying and other political influence buying operations.

If you follow the link to Doe v. Reed [ballotpedia.org] you will see the US Supreme Court has already decided in June 2010 and in a 8-1 ruling held that the law was not unconstitutional then send it back down to a lower court. In any case anonymous speech is mostly protected under the first amendment, not the fourth amendment.

Just because the judge waves her hands and says "these aren't the droids you're looking for" doesn't make it true. Nor does the great mounds of sophistry that has been used to expand federal powers far beyond what the Constitution intended and to shrink the effect of the Bill of Rights to far smaller than it is supposed to be.

No, this will not effect future participants willingness to say things.

It will certainly affect them though. Seriously, most of the time I don't give a shit about grammar or spelling, but when you substitute one word for another it makes your post hard to read. Please learn the difference between effect and affect. I know the verb form of the noun effect is affect and that makes it slightly more confusing, but effect is also a verb that means something different than affect. In the context of your sentence, by using "effect" you've actually said that this decision will encourage future participants to engage in speech, the exact opposite of what you meant.

I really hate grammar and spelling nazis. I rarely make those kinds of mistakes, and I normally get "affect" and "effect" right, because I know the difference is a big deal. Unfortunately your condescension and combative tone are extremely irritating, and now I feel like I should try to make the mistake more often just to annoy you personally.

If you want to change people's behavior, try a little humor and a bit of understanding that people make mistakes. It will go a lot farther than an obnoxious rant with

One of the things that seems to be happening here is that USA Federal case law is beginning to define the difference between privacy, with its constitutional protections, and anonymity, which for all practical purposes only came into existence with the rise of the Internet. That is, before the Internet, there really was no effective way to publish anything to a large audience without leaving a trail that would expose the author's identity to anyone who cared to do the leg work.

That is, before the Internet, there really was no effective way to publish anything to a large audience without leaving a trail that would expose the author's identity to anyone who cared to do the leg work.

One of the things that seems to be happening here is that USA Federal case law is beginning to define the difference between privacy, with its constitutional protections, and anonymity, which for all practical purposes only came into existence with the rise of the Internet. That is, before the Internet, there really was no effective way to publish anything to a large audience without leaving a trail that would expose the author's identity to anyone who cared to do the leg work.

I'm sorry, but that is a total falsehood. Amonymous publishing was part and parcel of political movements for centuries. Pamphleteers [wikipedia.org] didn't always sign their names, as noted here [wikipedia.org]

One other feature of 18th C. pamphleteering deserves mention, one that may have a lot of relevance in other countries today where the Web is used for purposes of political insurrection. That is, the pamphlet was preferred by the rebels because it did not provide any target for retaliation by the crown. It was a guerilla form of publishing in which an individual or small revolutionary group could make a point, then disappear. This was in contrast to the more established printers. Typically, the printer owned his shop, his press, his tools and all his stock. If he antagonized the Crown, they knew just where to find him, and the king's agents could easily shut him down. The hit-and-run, anonymous pamphleteer, on the other hand, was almost impossible to find and, thus, to stop.

Anonymous pamphleteering was part of the American Revolution. The same way that samizdat was part of the fall of Soviet Russia.

Wikileaks may have inspired people in the Middle East to riot and overthrow their governments

This is a bad thing? Corrupt governments need to be overthrown (or at least someone needs to make an attempt). That said, their actions are not the fault of WIkileaks, but their own. Merely revealing the facts does not put the blame on them. It's a shame people are dying, but it is not the fault of Wikileaks. If they put someone worse in charge, then that is again their own fault. They merely act on the information given to them, and if they do it foolishly, that is not Wikileaks' fault.

There's quite a precedent for anonymous speech. Just because you say stuff doesn't mean you lose any expectation of privacy. I'd have gone with the so-far successful defense used at gitmo -- "foreigners do not have rights guaranteed in the constitution."

Now personally I'd assumed that the framers of the constitution were describing these rights as extending to all human beings. "ALL men yadda yadda." Certainly at any time those rights have been limited (Mostly for women and black people) they were conside

Not a chance. Treason is very narrowly defined in the US Constitution. You'd first need to classify her court or the Department of Justice as enemies to the United States. I'm not a lawyer, but I think you'd need both Congress and the Judicial system to cooperate in the effort, or maybe a plurality of state governments.

("States", "them", "their" -- Article 3 Section 3, read literally, doesn't refer to the federal government specifically. An argument could be made that any plurality of states could do...